THE CITY OF NEW YORK

BUSINESS INTEGRITY COMMISSION

100 CHURCH STREET, 20TH FLOOR

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007

DECISION OF THE BUSINESS INTEGRITYDENY THE APPLICATION OF EMPIREREMOVAL DBA 1-800-GOT-JUNK? FOROPERATE AS A TRADE WASTE BUSINESS

COMMISSION TOSTATE RUBBISHA LICENSE TO

Empire State Rubbish Removal DBA 1-800-GOT-JUNK? ("Empire State" or the"Applicant") has applied to the New York City Business Integrity Commission, formerlyknown as the New York City Trade Waste Commission, ("Commission"), for renewal ofits license to operate a trade waste business pursuant to Local Law 42 of 1996. See Title16-A of the New York City Administrative Code ("Admin. Code"), §§16-505(a), 16-508.Local Law 42, which created the Commission to license and regulate the commercialcarting industry in New York City, was enacted to address pervasive organized crime andother corruption in the industry, to protect businesses using private carting services, andto increase competition in the industry and thereby reduce prices.

Local Law 42 authorizes the Commission to refuse to issue a license to anyapplicant, who it determines, in the exercise of its discretion, lacks good character,honesty , and integrity. See Admin. Code §16-509(a). The statute identifies a number offactors that, among others , the Commission may consider in making its determination.See id. §16-509(a)(i)-(x). These illustrative factors include the failure to provide truthfulinformation to the Commission, certain civil or administrative findings of liability, andcertain associations with organized crime figures .

Based upon the record, the Commission denies Empire State 's Trade WasteLicense renewal application because the Applicant lacks good character, honesty andintegrity for following reasons:

A. The Applicant has repeatedly failed to respond to Commissiondirectives showing its disregard for the Commission's authorityand the laws which govern the trade waste industry.

B. The Applicant failed to pay government obligations for whichjudgments have been entered.

I. BACKGROUND

The New York City Carting Industry

Virtually all of the more than 200,000 commercial business establishments inNew York City contract with private carting companies to remove and dispose of theirrefuse. Historically, those services have been provided by several hundred companies.Beginning in the late 1950's, and until only recently, the commercial carting industry inthe City was operated as an organized crime-controlled cartel engaging in a pervasivepattern of racketeering and anticompetitive practices. The United States COUlt ofAppeals for the Second Circuit has described that cartel as "a 'black hole' in New YorkCity's economic life":

Like those dense stars found in the firmament, the cartel can not be seenand its existence can only be shown by its effect on the conduct of thosefalling within its ambit. Because of its strong gravitational field, no lightescapes very far from a "black hole" before it is dragged back . .. [T]herecord before us reveals that from the cartel's domination of the cartingindustry, no carter escapes.

Sanitation & Recycling Industry, Inc. v. City of New York, 107 F.3d 985, 989 (2d Cir.1997) ("SRI") (citation omitted).

Extensive evidence presented at lengthy City Council hearings addressing thecorruption that historically has plagued this industry revealed the nature of the cartel: anentrenched anticompetitive conspiracy carried out through customer-allocationagreements among carters, who sold to one another the exclusive right to servicecustomers, and enforced by organized crime-connected racketeers, who mediateddisputes among carters. See generally Peter Reuter, Racketeering in LegitimateIndustries: A Studv in the Economics of Intimidation (RAND Corp. 1987). After hearingthe evidence, the City Council found:

(I) "that the carting industry has been corruptly influenced byorganized crime for more than four decades";

(2) "that organized crime's corrupting influence over the industry hasfostered and sustained a cartel in which carters do not compete forcustomers";

(3) that to ensure carting companies' continuing unlawful advantages,"customers are compelled to enter into long-term contracts withonerous terms, including 'evergreen' clauses";

(4) "that the anti-competitive effects of this cartel have resulted, withfew exceptions , in the maximum [legal] rates ... effectively beingthe only rate available to businesses";

2

(5) "that businesses often pay substantially higher amounts thanallowed under the maximum rate because carters improperly chargeor overcharge for more waste than they actually remove";

(6) "that organized crime's corrupting influence has resulted innumerous crimes and wrongful acts, including physical violence,threats of violence, and property damage to both customers andcompeting carting firms";

(7) "that recent indictments have disclosed the pervasive nature of theproblem, the structure of the cartel, and the corruption it furthersthrough the activities of individual carters and trade associations";

(8) "that unscrupulous businesses in the industry have taken advantageof the absence of an effective regulatory scheme to engage infraudulent conduct"; and

(9) "that a situation in which New York City businesses, both large andsmall, must pay a 'mob tax' in order to provide for removal of tradewaste is harmful to the growth and prosperity of the. localeconomy."

Local Law 42, § 1.

The criminal cartel operated through the industry's four leading New York Citytrade associations, the Association of Trade Waste Removers of Greater New YorkC'GNYTW"), the Greater New York Waste Paper Association ("WPA"), the KingsCounty Trade Waste Association ("KCTW"), and the Queens County Trade WasteAssociation ("QCTW"), all of which were controlled by organized crime figures formany years. See, e.g., Local Law 42, §l; United States v. International Brotherhood ofTeamsters (Adelstein), 998 F.2d 120 (2d Cir. 1993). As the Second Circuit found,regardless of whatever limited legitimate purposes these trade associations might haveserved, they "operateld] in illegal ways" by "enforc[ing] the cartel's anticompetitivedominance of the waste collection industry." SRI, 107 F.3d at 999.

In June 1995, all four trade associations, together with seventeen individuals andtwenty-three carting companies, were indicted on enterprise corruption, criminal antitrust,and related charges as a result of a five-year investigation into the industry by theManhattan District Attorney's Office and the New York Police Department. See Peoplev. Ass'n of Trade Waste Removers of Greater New York Inc. et a1., Indictment No.5614/95 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.). The defendants included capos and soldiers in theGenovese and Gambino organized crime families who acted as "business agents" for thefour trade associations, as well as carters closely associated with organized crime and thecompanies they operated. In essence, the carting industry's modus operandi, the cartel,was indicted as a criminal enterprise.

More carting industry indictments followed. In June 1996, both the ManhattanDistrict Attorney and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

3

obtained major indictments of New York metropolitan area carters. The stateindictments, against thirteen individuals and eight companies, were (like their 1995counterpart) based upon undercover operations, including electronic surveillance intercepts,which revealed a trade waste removal industry still rife with corruption and organized crimeinfluence. The federal indictment, against seven individuals and fourteen companiesassociated with the Genovese and Gambino . organized crime families (including thebrother and nephew of Genovese boss Vincent «Chin" Gigante), included charges ofracketeering, extortion, arson, and bribery. See United States v. Mario Gigante et al., No.96 Cr. 466 (S.D.N.Y.). In November 1996, the Manhattan District Attorney announced athird round of indictments in his continuing investigation of the industry, bringing thetotal number of defendants in the state prosecution to thirty-four individuals, thirty-fourcompanies, and four trade waste associations.

The accuracy of the sweeping charges in the indictments has been repeatedlyconfirmed by a series of guilty pleas and jury verdicts. On October 23, 1996, defendantJohn Vitale pleaded guilty to a state antitrust violation for his participation in theanticompetitive criminal cartel. In his allocution, Vitale, a principal of the cartingcompany Vibro, Inc. , acknowledged that he turned to the trade associations, andspecifically to Genovese capo Alphonse Malangone and Gambino soldier JosephFrancolino, to obtain their assistance in preventing another carter from bidding on wasteremoval services for a "Vibro-owned" building in Manhattan.

On January 27, 1997, Angelo Ponte, a lead defendant in the state prosecution andthe owner of one of the City 's largest carting companies, pleaded guilty to attemptedenterprise corruption and agreed to a prison sentence of two to six years and to pay $7.5million in tines, restitution, and civil forfeitures. In his allocution, Ponte acknowledgedthe existence of a "property rights" system in the New York City carting industry,enforced by a cartel comprised of carters and their trade associations through customerallocation schemes, price fixing, bid rigging, and economic retaliation, for the purpose ofrestraining competition and driving up carting prices and carting company profits. Hisson, Vincent J. Ponte, pleaded guilty to paying a $10,000 bribe to obtain a cartingcontract to service an office building. Both defendants agreed to be permanently barredfrom the City's carting industry.

On January 28, 1997, Vincent Vigliotti became the fourth individual defendant toplead guilty to carting industry corruption charges. In addition, two carting companiesand a transfer station run by Vigliotti 's family under his auspices pleaded guilty tocriminal antitrust violations. In his allocution, Vigliotti confirmed Ponte's admissions asto the scope of the criminal antitrust conspiracy in the City 's carting industry, illustratedby trade association-enforced compensation payments for lost customers and concertedefforts to deter competitors from entering the market through threats and economicretaliation. Vigliotti agreed to serve a prison term of one to three years, to pay $2.1million in fines, restitution, and civil forfeitures, and to be permanently barred from theCity's carting industry.

On February 13, 1997, the KCTW pleaded guilty to criminal restraint of trade andagreed to pay a $1 million fine, and four individuals who were officers of or otherwiseclosely associated with the KCTW, as well as their affiliated carting companies, pleaded

4

guilty to corruption charges. The Brooklyn carters who were the KCTW's principalrepresentatives -- president Frank Allocca and vice-president Daniel Todisco -- pleadedguilty to attempted enterprise corruption, as did Brooklyn carter Dominick Vulpis; eachof their defendant companies pleaded guilty to criminal restraint of trade. Brooklyncarter and KCTW secretary Raymond Polidori also pleaded guilty to criminal restraint oftrade, as did two related companies controlled by Polidori. These individual defendantsagreed to pay fines ranging from $250,000 to $750,000, to serve sentences ranging fromprobation to 4\12 years in prison, and to be permanently barred from the City's cartingindustry. The same day, Manhattan carters Henry Tamily and Joseph Virzi pleadedguilty to attempted enterprise corruption and agreed to similar sentences, fines, andprohibitions. All six defendants confirmed the existence of the criminal cartel andadmitted to specific instances of their participation in it.

On February 24, 1997, defendants Michael D' Ambrosio, Robros Recycling Corp.,and Vaparo, Inc. all pleaded guilty in allocutions before New York Supreme CourtJustice Leslie Crocker Snyder. D'Ambrosio pleaded guilty to attempted enterprisecorruption, and his companies pleaded to criminal antitrust violations.

On July 21, 1997, Philip Barretti, another lead defendant in the state prosecutionand the former owner of the City's largest carting company, pleaded guilty to two countsof attempted enterprise corruption and agreed to a prison sentence of 4 \12 to 13\12 yearsand to pay $6 million in fines, restitution, and civil forfeitures. Frank Giovinco, formerhead of the WPA, pleaded guilty to attempted enterprise corruption and agreed to aprison sentence of 3\12 to 10\12 years. Carters Paul Mongelli and Louis Mongelli alsopleaded guilty to attempted enterprise corruption, and agreed to prison sentences of tourto twelve and 3'/3 to ten years , respectively. All four defendants agreed to bepermanently barred from the City's carting industry. On the same day, Philip Barretti,Jr. and Mark Barretti pleaded guilty to an enviromnental felony and commercial bribery,respectively, and agreed to be sentenced to five years probation. The Barretti andMongelli carting companies also pleaded guilty at the same time. A few days later, theWPA pleaded guilty to criminal restraint of trade.

In the federal case, on September 30, 1997, Thomas Milo, a Gambino familyassociate, and his company, Suburban Carting, among others , pleaded guilty to federalcharges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to make and file false andfraudulent tax returns, and, respectively, to defraud Westchester County in connectionwith a transfer station contract and to violate the Taft-Hartley Act by making unlawfulpayments to a union official. In their allocutions, Suburban and Milo admitted that oneobjective of the conspiracy was to conceal the distribution of cartel "property rights"profits by engaging in sham transactions.

The pleas of guilty to reduced charges by the state defendants took place in thecontext of an ongoing prosecution of the entire enterprise corruption conspiracy, in whichtestimony had begun in March 1997. The remaining defendants were the GNYTW,Gambino soldier Joseph Francolino and one of his carting companies, Genovese capoAlphonse Malangone, and two carting companies controlled by defendant PatrickPecoraro (whose case, together with the case against the QCTW, had been severed due tothe death of their attorney during the trial). On October 21, 1997, the jury returned guilty

5

verdicts on enterprise corruption charges - the most serious charges in the indictment ­against all six of the remaining defendants , as well as guilty verdicts on a host of othercriminal charges. On November 18, 1997, Francolino was sentenced to a prison terrn often to thirty years and fined $900,000, and the GNYTW was fined $9 million. OnJanuary 12, 1998, Malangone was sentenced to a prison term of five to fifteen years andfined $200,000.

On January 21, 1998, Patrick Pecoraro pleaded guilty to attempted enterprisecorruption and agreed to serve a prison sentence of one to three years, to pay a $1 millionfine, and to be barred permanently from the City 's carting industry. On the same day, theQCTW pleaded guilty to a criminal antitrust violation and agreed to forfeit all of itsassets. Numerous other guilty pleas followed. On December 21, 1999, all of the guiltyverdicts were affirmed on appeal. See People v. GNYTW, 701 N.Y.S.2d 12 (l st Dep't1999).

In sum, it is far too late in the day for anyone to question the existence of apowerful criminal cartel in the New York City carting industry. Its existence has beenproven beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof at trial also established conclusively thatthe cartel which controlled the carting industry for decades through a rigorously enforcedcustomer-allocation system was itself controlled by organized crime, whose presence inthe industry was so pervasive and entrenched - extending to and emanating from all ofthe industry 's trade associations, which counted among their collective membershipvirtually every carter - that it could not have escaped the notice of any carter, Thesecriminal convictions confirm the judgment of the Mayor and the City Council in enactingLocal Law 42, and creating the Commission, to address this pervasive problem.

B. Local Law 42

Upon the enactment of Local Law 42, the Commission assumed regulatoryauthority from the Department of Consumer Affairs (the "DCA") for the licensing ofbusinesses that remove, collect, or dispose of trade waste. See Admin. Code § 16-503.The carting industry immediately challenged the new law, but the courts haveconsistently upheld Local Law 42 against repeated facial and as-applied constitutionalchallenges by New York City carters. See. e.g., Sanitation & Recycling Industry, Inc. v.City of New York, 928 F. Supp. 407 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd, 107 F.3d 985 (2d Cif. 1997);Universal Sanitation Corp. v. Trade Waste Comm'n, 940 F. Supp. 656 (S.D.N.Y. 1996);Vigliotti Bros. Carting Co. v. Trade Waste Comm'n, No. 115993/96 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty.Dec. 4,1996); Fava v. City of New York, No. CV-97-0179 (E.D.N.Y. May 12, 1997);Imperial Sanitation Com. v. City of New York, No. 97 CV 682 (E.D.N.Y. June 23,1997); PJC Sanitation Services, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 97-CV-364 (E.D.N.Y. July7, 1997).

Local Law 42 provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to operate abusiness for the purpose of the collection of trade waste . .. without having first obtaineda license therefor from the [Cjommission." Admin. Code § l6-505(a). After providing alicense applicant with notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Commission may"refuse to issue a license to an applicant who lacks good character, honesty andintegrity." Id. §16-509(a). Although Local Law 42 became effective immediately,

6

carting licenses previously issued by the DCA remained valid pending decision by theCommission on timely filed license applications. See Local Law 42, §14(iii)(a).

As the United States Court of Appeals has definitively ruled, an applicant for acarting license under Local Law 42 has no entitlement to and no property interest in alicense, and the Commission is vested with broad discretion to grant or deny a licenseapplication. SRI, 107 F.3d at 995; see also Daxor Corp. v. New York Dep't of Health, 90N.Y.2d 89, 98-100, 681 N.E.2d 356, 659 N.Y.S.2d 189 (1997). In determining whetherto issue a license to an applicant, the Commission may consider, among other things, thefollowing matters, if applicable:

(i) failure by such applicant to provide truthful information 111

connection with the application;

(ii) a pending indictment or criminal action against such applicant for acrime which under this subdivision would provide a basis for therefusal of such license, or a pending civil or administrative actionto which such applicant is a party and which directly relates to thefitness to conduct the business or perfmID the work for which thelicense is sought, in, which cases the commission may deferconsideration of an application until a decision has been reachedby the court or administrative tribunal before which such action ispending;

(iii) conviction of such applicant for a crime which, considering thefactors set forth in section seven hundred fifty-three of thecorrection law, would provide a basis under such law for therefusal of such license;

(iv) a finding of liability in a civil or administrative action that bears adirect relationship to the fitness of the applicant to conduct thebusiness for which the license is sought;

(v) commission of a racketeering activity or knowing association witha person who has been convicted of a racketeering activity,including but not limited to the offenses listed in subdivision oneof section nineteen hundred sixty-one of the Racketeer Influencedand Corrupt Organizations statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961 et~) or ofan ofTense listed in subdivision one of section 460.10 of the penallaw, as such statutes may be amended from time to time, or theequivalent offense under the laws of any other jurisdiction;

(vi) association with any member or associate of an organized crimegroup as identified by a federal, state or city law enforcement orinvestigative agency when the applicant knew or should haveknown of the organized crime associations of such person;

7

(vii) having been a principal in a predecessor trade waste business assuch term is defined in subdivision a of section 16-508 of thischapter where the commission would be authorized to deny alicense to such predecessor business pursuant to this subdivision;

(viii) current membership in a trade association where such membershipwould be prohibited to a licensee pursuant to subdivision j ofsection 16-520 of this chapter unless the commission hasdetermined, pursuant to such subdivision, that such associationdoes not operate in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of thischapter;

(ix) the holding of a position in a trade association where membershipor the holding of such position would be prohibited to a licenseepursuant to subdivision j of section 16-520 of this chapter;

(x) failure to pay any tax, fine, penalty, or fee related to the applicant'sbusiness for which liability has been admitted by the person liabletherefor, or for which judgment has been entered by a court oradministrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

Admin. Code § 16-509(a)(i)-(x).

II. HISTORY OF THE APPLICANT

On October 15,2007, Empire State ("Applicant") applied to the Commission for alicense to operate a trade waste business. See Empire State's Application for a TradeWaste Removal License. The listed principal of this business was Karim Charles Collett.The Commission conducted a background investigation of the Applicant and on or aboutJanuary 11,2008, the Commission issued the Applicant a Trade Waste Removal License("License"). This License was effective February 1, 2008 and valid for a period of twoyears. During this two year period that Applicant held a valid License, the followingdirectives and violations were issued to the Applicant:

o On or about December 1, 2008, the Commission issued a directive toEmpire State which ordered the submission of a proposed customer bill tothe Commission, before January 1, 2009. See Trade Waste Violation("TW") 3569. Empire State failed to respond to this Commissiondirective and on April 9, 2009 a violation was issued. Empire State failedto appear at the scheduled hearing and the New York City Department ofConsumer Affairs Administrative Tribunal ("DCA") issued a DefaultDecision and Order ("judgment") in the amount 01'$10,000.00.

o On or about December 23, 2008, the Commission issued a violation toEmpire State for failing to provide off street parking for vehicles used totransport waste in violation of Title 17 Rules of the City of New York("RCNY") §5-08. See TW 3358. Empire State failed to appear at the

8

scheduled hearing and DCA issued a judgment 111 the amount of$10,000.00.

o On or about December 24, 2008 , the Commission issued a directive toEmpire State which ordered the submission of customer register data tothe .Commission for the period of July 1, 2008 to December 26, 2008,before January 30, 2009. See TW 3615. Empire State failed to respond tothe Commission directive and failed to submit its customer register data.On February 25, 2009 , a violation was issued. Empire State failed toappear at the scheduled hearing and DCA issued a judgment in the amountof $10,000.00.

o On or about March 12,2009, the Commission issued a directive to EmpireState which ordered that it respond to a semi-annual waste surveyconducted by New York City Department of Sanitation before April 20,2009. See TW 4460. Empire State failed to respond to this Commissiondirective and on September 10,2009, a violation was issued. Empire Statetailed to appear at the scheduled hearing and DCA issued a judgment inthe amount of $10,000 .00.

o On or about June 1, 2009 , the Commission issued a directive to EmpireState which ordered the submission of its annual financial statement forthe year 2008 to the Commission, before August 17,2009. See TW 4762.Empire State failed to respond to this Commission directive and tailed tofile its 2008 Annual Financial Statement. On or about November 19,2009 , a violation was issued. Empire State failed to appear at thescheduled hearing and DCA issued a judgment in the amount of$10 ,000 .00.

o On or about July 6, 2009 , the Commission issued a directive to EmpireState which ordered the submission of its customer register data to theCommission for the period of January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009, beforeJuly 31, 2009. See TW 4605. Empire State failed to respond to theCommission directive and failed to submit its customer register data. Onor about September 25, 2009, a violation was issued. Empire State failedto appear at the scheduled hearing and DCA issued a judgment in theamount of $20,000 .00.

o On or about December 16, 2009 , the Commission issued a directive toEmpire State which ordered the submission of its customer register data tothe Commission for the period of July 2009 to December 2009, beforeJanuary 31, 2010. See TW 5235. Empire State tailed to respond to theCommission directive and failed to submit its customer register data. Onor about December 2, 2010 , a violation was issued . Empire State failed toappear at the scheduled hearing and DCA issued a judgment in the amountof $20 ,000.00.

9

o On or about December 17, 2009, the Commission issued a directive toEmpire State which ordered that it resolve the judgments by January 5,2010.

On February 2,2011, Empire State submitted an application to the Commission torenew its License. See Empire State's Renewal Application for a License or Registrationas a Trade Waste Business ("Renewal Application"). The Commission's backgroundinvestigation revealed the seven outstanding judgments, totaling $90,000.00. See supraat 8-10.

On or about February 23, 2011, a member of the Commission's BackgroundInvestigation Unit contacted Mr. Collett and advised him that the judgments must beresolved before Empire State's Renewal Application could be approved. Mr. Collett wasgranted time to resolve the judgments while the Commission's background investigationprogressed. However, Mr. Collett did not resolve the judgments.

On or about June 22, 2011, a member of the Commission's staff again contactedMr. Collett to advise him that he must resolve the outstanding judgments before EmpireState's Renewal Application could be approved. Mr. Collett was advised that failing toresolve the outstanding judgments would result in the denial of his Renewal Application.After several additional telephone conversations and email correspondences, on or aboutJune 30, 2011, Mr. Collett was granted until August 1, 2011 to resolve the outstandingjudgments. See Commission Staffs email to Mr. Collett dated June 30, 2011 at 12:30PM.

On August 1, 2011, Mr. Collett still had not resolved the judgments. Additionalemail correspondences and telephone conversations were exchanged with Mr. Collett andhis accountant, regarding the outstanding judgments. However, Mr. Collett failed toresolve the judgments, despite the nun~erous opportunities.

On January 3, 2012, the Commission's Staff served Empire State with theCommission Staffs recommendation that Empire State's Renewal Application be denied.See Recommendation of the Staff that the Business Integrity Commission Deny theApplication of Empire State Rubbish Removal DBA 1-800-GOT-JUNK? For a Licenseto Operate as a Trade Waste Business ("Recommendation"). Empire State was givenuntil January 20, 2012 to submit their response to the Recommendation.

On January 4, 2012, Mr. Collett responded in an email message which did notassert any legal arguments or controvert the Recommendation's factual findings. See Mr.Collett's email to the Commission dated January 4, 2012 at 9:43 PM ("Response"). Inthe Response, Empire State claimed that it.had ceased operations, and that it had notifiedthe Commission. However, the Response failed to provide proof to support thisassertion. l Notwithstanding Empire State's claims, the Commission remains empoweredto make a finding as Empire State's Renewal Application is still pending.

I The Commission's records do not show that Empire State notified the Commission that it had ceased tooperate. Rather, the records show that Empire State is still in possession of items required to operate atrade waste business: its trade waste registration plates and its License. Furthermore, as of January 23,2012, the New York State Department of State's lists Empire State as an active corporate entity.

10

II. The Commission denies Empire State's Renewal Application because theApplicant lacks good character, honesty and integrity for following reasons:

A. The Applicant has repeatedly failed to respond to Commissiondirectives showing its disregard for the Commission's authority andthe laws which govern the trade waste industry.

"The Commission may refuse to issue a license or registration to an applicant.. .who has knowingly failed to provide the information and/or documentation required bythe commission pursuant to ... any rules promulgated pursuant hereto ..." Admin. Code§16-509(b)?

Empire State has clearly demonstrated that it lacks good character, honesty andintegrity as it has repeatedly failed to respond to and comply with the Commission'sdirectives. See supra at 8-10. Over its short period of licensure, Empire States has failedto respond to seven Commission directives.3 This shows a disregard for theCommission's authority and the laws which govern the trade waste industry.

Clearly, this conduct provides a sufficient independent ground to deny itsRenewal Application. Admin. Code §16-509(b). Therefore, based upon thisindependently sufficient ground, the Commission denies Empire State's RenewalApplication.

B. The Applicant Failed to Pay Government Obligations for WhichJudgments Have Been Entered.

"[T]he failure to pay any tax, tine, penalty or fee related to the applicant's businessfor which ... judgment has been entered by a court or administrative tribunal ofcompetent jurisdiction" may serve as a ground for refusing to issue a License. Admin.Code §16-509(a)(x). As of January 23, 2012, Empire State has failed to pay $90,000.00in judgments which have been entered by DCA, an administrative tribunal of competentjurisdiction.

Empire State has clearly demonstrated that it lacks good character, honesty andintegrity as the following judgments have been entered against it:

• Date: 04/2812009 - Violation Number TW 3358, $10,000.00• Date: OS/22/2009 - Violation Number TW 3569, $10,000.00• Date: 0512 112009 - Violation Number TW 3615, $10,000.00• Date: 12/28/2009 - Violation Number TW 4460, $10,000.00• Date: 03/09/2010 - Violation Number TW 4605, $20,000.00

1 Title 17 RCNY § I-09 empowers the Commission to issues directives and requires that licensees compl ywith the Commission's orders. See 17 RCNY §1-09.J Additionally. Empire State ignored the violations issued by the Commission and failed to appear at all ofthe scheduled hearin g dates .

11

• Date: 01/20/2010 - Violation Number TW 4762, $10,000.00• Date: 12/21/2010 - Violation Number TW 5235, $20,000.00

The Applicant's failure to satisfy these judgments provides a sufficientindependent ground for denial of its Renewal Application. Admin. Code §16-509(a)(x).Therefore, the Commission that Empire State's Renewal Application.

12

III. CONCLUSION

Based upon the Empire State's repeated failure to comply with Commissiondirectives and failure to resolve outstanding judgments, the Commission finds that theApplicant lacks good character, honesty, and integrity and denies its RenewalApplication.

This denial is effective immediately. Empire State may not operate a trade wastebusiness in the City ofNew York

Dated: February 7,2012

THE BUSINESS INTEGRITY COMMISSION

~%~Commissioner/Chair

J et it, ssi nt General Counsel (designee)epartment of Consumer Affairs

~_)j~.J.=--~~Rose Gill Hearn, CommissionerDepartment of Investigation

ill 'Neill. Inspector (designee)New York City Police Department

13